Idealism is more plausible than most people think. Kastrup is an important voice in the new revival of the matter sceptics who believe that consciousness is all there really is in the universe. Their voices are more important now than ever when the "objective viewpoint" of empirical science has become so authoritative. At the same time, idealism needs to distinguish itself from superstition and religion, and it is not clear whether it can do so. Kastrup gives it a go, but ultimately succumbs in the latter task. This is a collection of some of Kastrup's writings, mostly in semi-popular prints, addressing a wide variety of topics, but all of them relate to the central question: How should we conceive of the link between consciousness and matter, or between subject and object?
Kastrup is an engaging writer. He tackles complex topics in a simple way. The essays are mostly short, suave, and to the point. They are mostly lighthearted and conversationalist in tone, and yet they tackle complex questions. Unfortunately, this also leads to simplification and slippery language. Maybe this is an artefact of his writing for a popular audience. Maybe; but I think he also lacks the patience for sustained analysis. Indeed, the quality of his arguments ranges from the serious and the well thought-out to the silly and the superficial. He seems quite dismissive towards many alternative theories and counterarguments to his theory. He also has the annoying habit of engaging in vitriolic, ad hominem attacks on his scientific opponents. This does not make him look strong; it only makes his theory look weak. Furthermore, he seems quite willing to embrace various forms of supernatural and religious interpretations. Indeed, he even partly aligns himself with Deepak Chopra, New Age quantum philosophy, and the like. Nonetheless, at his best, his essays flow like the river and his passionate arguments soar in the sky. He infuses his soul into his words. I can see students and laypeople being amazed and thrilled by his passion and vision. However, although I highly recommend reading some of Kastrup's essays, readers who wish to tackle the Big Question need to keep on reading elsewhere. Kastrup paints a beautiful, challenging picture that embodies the passion of the author, but is ultimately too superficial to challenge existing philosophy.
Although in the final analysis I believe that "the scientific image" (as Sellars called it) can and should be able to accommodate phenomenal consciousness, it certainly has trouble doing so at the moment. This means that we need to ask whether idealism, panpsychism, illusionism, dual aspect monism, or some other radical theoretical alternative holds the key to the riddle. I consider myself a pretty hard-nosed materialist and naturalist, but I am not sure if consciousness easily fits it. I have been attracted to idealism in the past, but I cannot get behind Kastrup's version of it. He asks the right questions and probes the right angles, but his arguments are filled with lazy logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks on his theoretical opponents, and an attraction to mumbo jumbo. My hunch is that we should be looking at a unified theory of naturalism that accommodates and "demystifies" phenomenal consciousness into a general theory of information, representation, and semiosis. It seems to me that if some version of phenomenalism or idealism is correct, it probably looks different from the version that Kastrup presents. Idealism must escape Deepak Chopra.